|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Since 1 April 2007 the Army has collated quarterly figures for its deployable elements only, rather than for its total trained strength. For this reason the figures are not comparable to those provided by the Navy and RAF in the same period. The Army's deployability returns provide a snapshot, on a specific day, of the deployability of Army personnel broken down into the following categories: fully deployable; limited deployability (LD); personnel unable to deploy (PUD). Many of those personnel classed as LD can and will deploy to operational theatres, likewise PUDs will be able to undertake non-deployed duties.
The following table provides the figures for calendar years 2007-08, personnel numbers are rounded to the nearest 10, and percentages rounded to one decimal point. It should be noted that since September 2008 the deployability return has extended the categories it collects against with the intention of providing greater granularity to limited deployability and PUD data. As result the September and December returns report against different metrics which may account for the increase in numbers.
|Fully Deployable||LD for Medical Reason||PUD for Medical Reasons|
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of each Army corps did not meet (a) harmony guidelines for tour intervals and (b) separated service guidelines in each year since 2001. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth:
Historical data to support the percentage calculation of breaches in harmony guidelines
for tour intervals and separated service guidelines for each Army corps in each year since 2001 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
|Corps||Percentage breaching harmony guidelines|
|(1)Excludes 2 Royal Tank Regiment as it has not deployed as a formed unit since 2003.|
(2)Excludes 1 and 2 Lancs due to their amalgamation (1 Korbr, 1 Kings and QLR) in 2006.
The unit tour interval is a less relevant measure when applied to other corps (such as Royal Engineers and the Royal Corps of Signals). This is due to the frequency with which personnel move between formed units within these corps (the personnel deployed with a unit will be substantially different from the personnel deployed with the same unit on a previous occasion). Unit tour interval data for these Corps are not, therefore, routinely collated.
The latest available data (as at December 2006) recorded separated service guideline breaches at an average of 10.3 per cent. across the Army. It is hoped that separated service data will, in future, be provided by the Joint Personnel Administration System.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Three Astute class submarines are on order with BAES (Submarine Solutions), and a further order was placed on 21 May 2007 to commence the build of the fourth boat. Long lead orders have been placed for items in respect of boats five and six. The intent is to place the first long lead order for boat seven before 2010.
As the hon. Member may be aware from the answer I gave on 12 January 2009, Official Report, column 71W, to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), there has been some delay to the Astute programme. We are re-baselining the programme and I will make an announcement in due course.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what timetable has been set for the completion of the construction programme for Astute-class submarines and the commencement of the programme to construct Trident II submarines in the same facility. 
Mr. Quentin Davies:
There has been a delay to the Astute programme. It is currently being re-baselined and an announcement will be made in due course.
Lessons learnt from the programme are, however, being applied to the design and build phase of the Future Submarine programme as part of normal business between closely related programmes.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the resilience to nuclear accidents of the proposed main process facility for assembling and dis-assembling nuclear warheads at AWE Burghfield. 
Mr. Quentin Davies: The proposed main process facility for the assembly and disassembly of nuclear warheads at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Burghfield is designed in accordance with internationally recognised standards and codes of practice that are applicable to any facility containing explosives and nuclear hazards. These standards have been developed and refined from experience across the nuclear field following research conducted into a number of accident scenarios, to ensure a demonstrably acceptable risk to the public, the work force and the environment.
Given the existence of robust recognised standards, further research is not currently required. Extensive analysis has, however, been conducted by experts at AWE to substantiate the building design and to meet the requirements of the Health and Safety Executives nuclear installations inspectorate and hazardous installations directorate.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department's financial contribution will be in support of the EU military mission to Chad and Central African Republic under the 2004 Athena mechanism. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Under the Athena mechanism, the UK's share of the approved budget for the EU military operation in Chad and Central African Republic is expected to be £14.7 million on the planned conclusion of the mission in March. This funding comes from the UK Government Peacekeeping Budget which is jointly managed by MOD, DFID and FCO and funded directly from the Treasury reserve.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Over each of the last 12 months, the UK has maintained a contribution of four military officers as part of EUFOR TChad/Central African Republic (CAR): two officers in the operational HQ at Mont Valerien in Paris and two officers in the force HQ in Chad. These staff officers are being provided under standing EU headquarters augmentation procedures.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Russian (a) military and (b) civilian contracted helicopters are currently used by EUFOR Tchad/CAR; and on how many occasions British personnel have flown in each. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The Russian contingent provides four military and no civilian contracted helicopters for current use by EUFOR Tchad/Central African Republic (CAR). No British personnel have flown in these helicopters.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF (a) C-17 Globemaster, (b) C-130K Hercules, (c) C-130J Hercules, (d) Tristar, (e) VC-10 and (f) other aircraft of each type have flown to the (i) Democratic Republic of Congo, (ii) Rwanda and (ii) Burundi since 21 November 2008. 
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of each management consultancy study commissioned by his Department from (a) McKinsey and Co, (b) PA Consulting, (c) KPMG and (d) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2005. 
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 12 January 2009, Official Report, columns 94-6W, on departmental data protection, how many (a) desktop computers, (b) laptop computers, (c) hard drives and (d) memory sticks have gone missing from (i) his Department and (ii) each of its agencies in each year since 2003. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The following tables show the number of officially issued assets centrally reported as missing (lost and stolen) from the MOD and its agencies since 2003. The figures in the following tables reflect the latest data held centrally as at 20 January 2009.
|Figures for missing desktop computers, laptop computers, hard drives and USB flash memory devices for the MOD from 2003- 08|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|